Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas, during the latter part of the Austin term, 1884, and the Tyler term, 1884. Volume 62. Page: 806

                                
806                           INDEX.
NEGLIGENCE - continued.
31. When one of two contracting parties must suffer through the fraud
of a third party, which was perpetrated in consequence of the negligence
of one of the contracting parties in carrying out his agreement, the loss
must be sustained by such negligent party. Stevens v. Gainesville Nat.
Bank, 499.
32. When, in a suit for damages, alleged to have been caused by the moving
train of a railway company in a city, where the failure to ring a bell or
blow a whistle had nothing to do with causing the injury, such failure
cannot be considered in determining the liability of the company. T. &
P. R'y Co. v. Wright, 515.
33. Where the petition states that a railway company's engine moved
rapidly through the company's yard, without any lookout upon it, whereby
injury resulted to plaintiff, such an allegation does not necessarily impute
negligence to the company. T. & P. R'y Co. v. Harrington, 597.
34. In operating their engines upon their yards, railway companies are not
held to the same degree of care, so far as strangers are concerned, as is required
at public crossings. B. & 0. R. R. Co. v. Depew, 12 Am. & Eng. R. R.
Cases, 64. Id.
85. The mere fact that one is injured by a locomotive operated by an engineer,
who is shown to have been near-sighted, will not of itself establish
negligence on the part of the company in retaining him in its employment.
Id.
36. Where two servants are employed by the same master, labor under
the same control, derive their authority and receive their compensation
from a common source, and are engaged in the same business though in
different departments of the common service, they are fellow-servants.
Dallas v. G., C. & S. F. R'y, 61 Tex., 196. Id.
37. In a suit for compensation by the wife against a railroad company for
the loss of her husband, her statements as to her pecuniary condition are
inadmissible. Id.
38. Persons who engage in any employment assume the risks necessary to
that employment, and when aware of the dangers connected with it they
voluntarily use implements which they know, or, by the exercise of the
knowledge they possess, might know, are not so well adapted to their business
as other implements, they cannot recover damages for injuries resulting
therefrom, which might have been avoided by the use of that ordinary
care which it is the duty of every one to use. H. & T. C. R'y Co. v. Conrad,
627.
39. Such is particularly the case when the work in which the injured
party was engaged was not such as was contemplated by his employer to be
performed in the manner done by him. Id.
NEGOTIABLE PAPER. See PROMISSORY NOTES, 1, 2.
1. A county warrant, though non-negotiable, is assignable. Leach v. Wilson
Co., 331.
NEW MATTER. See PLEADING, 1.
NEW   TRIAL.
1. See facts stated in the opinion under which a new trial should have
been awarded on account of an excessive verdict. Thomas v. Chapman, 193.
NON-NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT. See PROMISSORY NOTES, , 2.
NOTES. See PROMISSORY NOTES.